Cover not available

Article published In: Journal of Argumentation in Context
Vol. 9:3 (2020) ► pp.399–427

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Deliberating over legislative ends

An inventory of goal-(de)legitimizing argument schemes

 | University of Chile
Published online: 17 December 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.19010.ihn
Abstract
This paper outlines a non-exhaustive inventory of presumptive argument schemes that can be used by legislators to rationally argue for and against the legitimacy of legislative ends. The inventory has both a descriptive and normative dimension. The inventory is descriptive because it is partly based on the empirical observation of arguments actually used by legislators in a sample of lawmaking debates. However, the inventory is also normative because – as I shall argue in this paper – the schemes identified in the sample are presumptive arguments schemes. They are therefore schemes with a claim to rationality, provided that certain conditions are met. The schemes included in the inventory are: the scheme of instrumental argumentation, the scheme from unintended consequences, the scheme from values, the schemes from model and antimodel, and the schemes from social demand.
Article outline
  • 1.The rationality of legislation: Can we rationally justify legislative ends?
  • 2.Rational deliberation about legislative ends: A Habermasian account
  • 3.Causal goal-(de)legitimizing schemes in lawmaking debates
    • Scheme of instrumental argumentation
    • Scheme from unintended consequences
  • 4.Non-causal goal-(de)legitimizing schemes in lawmaking debates
    • Scheme from values
    • Schemes from model and antimodel
    • Schemes from social demand
  • 5.The normative force of the argument schemes in the inventory
  • 6.Concluding remarks
  • Notes
  • References
References (36)
References
Albert, Hans. 1985. Treatise on Critical Reason. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Original work published in 1968). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Atienza, Manuel. 1997. Contribución a una Teoría de la Legislación. Madrid: Civitas.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2005. “Reasoning and Legislation.” In The Theory and Practice of Legislation, ed. by Luc J. Wintgens. 297–317. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Atkinson, Katie, and Trevor Bench-Capon. 2007. “Practical Reasoning as Presumptive Argumentation using Action Based Alternating Transition Systems.” Artificial Intelligence 1711: 855–874. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blair, J. Anthony. 1998. “Walton’s Argument Schemes from Presumptive Reasoning: A Critique and Development”. In Proceedings of the Fourth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, Ed. By Frans H. van Eemeren, J. Anthony Blair, Rob Grootendorst and Charles Willard. Retrieved from: [URL]
Bohman, James, and William Rehg. 2017. “Jürgen Habermas.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. By Edward N. Zalta. Retrieved from [URL]
Bratman, Michael. 1987. Intention, Plans, and Practical Reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bulygin, Eugenio. 1991. “Teoría y Técnica de la Legislación.” In Análisis Lógico y Derecho [Logical Analysis and Law], ed. by Carlos E. Alchourrón, and Eugenio Bulygin. 409–415. Madrid: Centro de Estudios Constitucionales.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Feteris, Eveline. 2002. A Pragma-Dialectical Approach of the Analysis and Evaluation of Pragmatic Argumentation in a Legal Context. Argumentation 161 (31): 349–367. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Freeman, James B. 2013. “What types of arguments are there?”. OSSA Conference Archive. 501. [URL]
García Amado, J. Antonio. 1988. Teorías de la Tópica Jurídica. Madrid: Civitas.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2000. “Razón Práctica y Teoría de la Legislación [Practical Reason and Theory of Legislation].” Derechos y Libertades: Revista del Instituto Bartolomé de las Casas 91: 299–318.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 2004. The Theory of Communicative Action. Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Cambridge: Polity Press. (Original work published in 1984).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1996. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge, CA: MIT Press. (Original work published in 1992). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2001. “On the Pragmatic, the Ethical, and the Moral Employment of Practical Reason.” In Justification and Application. Remarks on Discourse Ethics, 1–17. Cambridge, Massachusetts/ London, England: MIT Press. (First MIT edition, 1994).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1990. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, C. Lenhardt and S. W. Nicholsen (trans). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Originally published in 1983).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hastings, Arthur. 1963. A Reformulation of the Modes of Reasoning in Argumentation. Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Historia de la Ley Nº 20.634. 2012. Otorga Beneficios a los Deudores del Crédito con Garantía Estatal y Modifica la Ley N° 20.027.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Karpen, Ulrich. 1986. “Zum gegenwärtigen Stand der Gesetzgebungslehre in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland [The current status of legislation in the Federal Republic of Germany].” Zeitschrift für Gesetzgebung 11: 5–32.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kelsen, Hans. 2007. General Theory of Law and State. New York: Clark. (Original work published in 1945).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marcilla Córdoba, Gema. 2013. “Razón Práctica, Creación de normas y Principio Democrático: Una Reflexión sobre los Ámbitos de la Argumentación Legislativa [Practical Reason, the Creation of Norms and the Democratic Principle].” Anales de la Cátedra Francisco Suárez 471: 43–83.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perelman, Chaim, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. 2000. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. (Original work published in 1958).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pitkin, Hanna F. 1967. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: University of California. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schwartz, Shalom H. 1992. “Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 countries.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 251: 1–65.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Toulmin, Stephen. 2003). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University press. (original work published in 1958). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van der Weide, Tom L., Frank Dignum, John-Jules Ch. Meyer, Henry Prakken, and Gerard A. W. Vreeswijk. 2010. “Practical Reasoning Using Values: Giving Meaning to Values.” In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, ed. by Peter McBurney et al.. 79–93. Budapest, Hungary. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Eemeren, Frans H. and Rob Grootendorst. 1992. Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Von Wright, Georg. 1972. On so-called practical inference. Acta Sociologica 151: 39–53. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas, and Erik C. W. Krabbe. 1995. Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts for Interpersonal Reasoning. NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas. 1996. Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1999. Appeal to Popular Opinion. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007. “Evaluating Practical Reasoning.” Synthese 1571: 197–240. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. Value-based Practical Reasoning, From Knowledge Representation to Argumentation. In AI, Law and Policy Making: a Festschrift in Honour of Trevor Bench-Capon, ed. by K. Atkinson, H. Prakken and A. Wyner. 259–282. London: College Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas, and Chris Reed. 2002. “Argumentation Schemes and Defeasible Inferences.” Paper prsented at the Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument, 15th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Lyon.
Walton, Douglas, Chris Reed, and Fabrizio Macagno. 2008. Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wróblewski, Jerzy. 1979. “A Model of Rational Law-Making.” ARSP LXV (2): 187–201.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Corredor, Cristina
2023. Agreeing on a Norm: What Sort of Speech Act?. Topoi 42:2 ► pp. 495 ff. DOI logo
Innocenti, Beth
2022. Cultivating contexts for deliberative argumentation. Journal of Argumentation in Context 11:3 ► pp. 394 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue